= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
katydee comments on Existential Risk and Public Relations - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (613)
I'm sorry, but people like Wei force me to do this as they make this whole movement look like being completely down-to-earth, when in fact most people, if they knew about the full complexity of beliefs within this community, would laugh out loud.
The "laugh test" is not rational. I think that, if the majority of people fully understood the context of such statements, they would not consider them funny.
The context asked 'what kind of things a typical smart person would find uncredible'. This is a perfect example of such a thing.
A typical smart person would find the laugh test credible? We must have different definitions of "smart."
The topic was the banned topic and the deleted posts - not the laugh test. If you explained what happened to an outsider - they would have a hard time believing the story - since the explanation sounds so totally crazy and ridiculous.
I'll try to test that, but keep in mind that my standards for "fully understanding" something are pretty high. I would have to explain FAI theory, AI-FOOM, CEV, what SIAI was, etc.
(Voted you back up to 0 here.)
I think you are right about the laugh test itself.